adj. Reference to a judgment, decision or judgment of a court on the basis of the facts set out in the evidence and the law applicable to that evidence. A judge decides a case „on the merits“ if he bases the decision on the fundamental issues and considers that the technical and procedural defences are irrelevant or that they are overcome. Example: A lawyer is two days late in filing a number of legal and authority points against a motion to dismiss. Instead of dismissing the case on the basis of this technical violation of procedure, the judge considers the case „on the merits“, as if this error had not occurred. In law, merit is the rights and injustices inherent in a legal case, without emotional or technical bias. The evidence applies exclusively to cases decided on the merits and any procedural issue is not taken into consideration. The main controversy before the Delhi Supreme Court is the scope of the review under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in a pre-referral phase. The case spml INFRA LTD v. NTPC LTD [ARB. P. 477/2020] arose from the dispute concerning the apparent novation of the contract. Based on a number of cases, the Court concluded that prior to the 2015 amendment, which had been established by the Supreme Court and allowed the courts to consider whether the agreement and satisfaction had taken place, had now been repealed.

The High Court then decided that it should make available to the parties to the arbitration unless it could conclude that the dispute raised by the claimant concerning the validity of the settlement was unfounded; is not bonafide or frivolous. The petition is unfounded. Chan robles virtual law library The term comes from the old French deserves and means „reward“ or „moral value“. For this reason, the immediate application is REJECTED on the basis of the above for lack of merit. The order of 15 May 1998 of the Court of Appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 21018 is upheld. Chan robles Virtual Law Library Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 975 of 2021: The Delhi Supreme Court ruled that the shareholders` agreement as a comprehensive agreement between all shareholders had renewed the letter of intent and therefore the arbitration clause had disappeared with it. SPML has filed a request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for the formation of an arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes between the parties under the contractual agreement of 22.06.2009. On that day, the parties entered into a contract under which SPML will install a thermal power plant for NTPC in Vishakapatnam, for which SPML has provided performance bank guarantees and bank prepayment guarantees.

SPML completed the project on 18.12.2015 and therefore received a certificate of completion. This is the case of SPML that NTPC failed even after issuing the certificate of completion and did not release the bank guarantees. The complainant`s request for reconsideration was rejected; Hence the immediate application filed under Article 45 of the revised Rules of Procedure, in which the applicant claims that, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeal, he was able to lodge his application for appeal on 22 December 1997 within the normal time limit, as evidenced by the stamp in the upper right corner of his copy. Arguing that the pleadings were filed beyond the time limit set by the Court of Appeal, it must nevertheless be admitted and take precedence over the technique of the law of justice and equality. As the Virtual Law Library was not satisfied with the applicant`s statement, the appeal was dismissed by a resolution of 15 May 1998. Chan robles virtual law library The applicant asked this Court for a liberal application of the technical rules of procedure. However, it is obvious that the jurisprudence of the court, promulgated by the authority of the law, has the force and effect of the law. [5] More importantly, the rules requiring the time limit within which certain acts or proceedings must be initiated are absolutely essential in order to avoid unnecessary delays and to carry out judicial activity correctly and quickly. Strict compliance with these rules is mandatory and essential. [6] Only sound considerations of justice, which are erroneous in this case, will lead us to allow an exception to the procedural rule in the interests of substantive justice.